Leaked draft of Copenhagen Treaty: Barely anything to do with the environment?

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
01-12-2010 - Update

Looks like we're off to a roaring start - the "developing" nations who were asked to "commit to nationally appropriate mitigation actions" are going to miss the deadline to submit their numbers.

UN abandons climate change deadline

The timetable to reach a global deal to tackle climate change lay in tatters on Wednesday after the United Nations waived the first deadline of the process laid out at last month’s fractious Copenhagen summit.

Nations agreed then to declare their emissions reduction targets by the end of this month. Developed countries would state their intended cuts by 2020: developing countries would outline how they would curb emissions growth.

But Yvo de Boer, the UN’s senior climate change official, admitted the deadline had in effect been shelved.

“By [the end of] January, countries will have the opportunity to . . . indicate if they want to be associated with the accord,” he said. “[Governments could] indicate by the deadline, or they can also indicate later.”

“You could describe it as a soft deadline,” Mr de Boer said. “There is nothing deadly about it. If [countries] fail to meet it, they can still associate with the Copenhagen accord after.”

--

12-17-2009 - Original Post

First off, load this up in another tab:

Adoption of The Copenhagen Agreement - DRAFT 271109 Decision 1/CP.15

So as I posted earlier, I've read one of the pre-convention drafts of the treaty and was amazed at how obvious the language was about having very little to do with the environment - it seemed to be all about wealth transfer from "developed" to "developing" nations, with nothing in the treaty requiring the "developing" to use these funds to cut emissions.

I'm not exactly sure why these drafts have to be leaked instead of posted publicly for our perusal, but whatever. The UK's Guardian newspaper has a draft from last week up on their website and I've taken another quick scan through it to see what the fuss is about, and if anything has changed.

It still doesn't appear to have much to do with cutting carbon emissions. There's language in there about the environment, but only as a justification for a mandated $X billion dollar support fund for "developing" nations.

I'll touch on a few parts of the draft to explain why I'm thinking this way. There are 32 "points" to this proposed agreement, each numbered.

2. In this regard, the Parties:

- Commit to take action to mitigate climate change based on their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities,

- Commit to take action on adaptation including international support assisting the poorest and most vulnerable countries,

- Commit to strengthen the international architecture for the provision of substantially increased finance for climate efforts in developing countries,

- Commit to establish a technology mechanism to promote the development, transfer and deployment of environmentally sustainable technologies in support of mitigation and adaptation efforts.

As you can see, straightaway in the draft we have mention of financial support for developing nations.

7. The developed country Parties commit to individual national economy wide targets for 2020. The targets in Attachment A would expect to yield aggregate emissions reductions by X1 percent by 2020 versus 1990 (X2 percent vs. 2005). The purchase of international offset credits will play a supplementary role to domestic action.

The developed country Parties support a goal to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases in aggregate by 80% or more by 2050 versus 1990 (X3 percent versus 2005).

"Developed" nations, in other words, have a hard target.

9. The developing country Parties, except the least developed countries which may contribute at their own discretion, commit to nationally appropriate mitigation actions, including actions supported and enabled by technology, financing and capacity-building. The developing countries’ individual mitigation action could in aggregate yield a [Y percent] deviation in [2020] from business as usual and yielding their collective emissions peak before [20XX] and decline thereafter.

The least developed nations don't have to do anything - indeed, they contribute at their own discretion. Everyone who's not in last place has to commit to "nationally appropriate mitigation actions".

"Developing" nations, in other words, have no hard target.

12. Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation is an important aspect of the necessary response to climate change. Developing countries should contribute to enhanced mitigation actions through reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, maintaining existing and enhancing carbon stocks, and enhancing removals by increasing forest cover.

Parties underline the importance of enhanced and sustained financial resources and positive incentives for developing countries to, through a series of phases, build capacity and undertake actions that result in measurable, reportable and verifiable greenhouse gas emission reductions and removal and changes in forest carbon stocks in relation to reference emission levels.

Developed nations will provide "sustained financial resources and positive incentives" to developing nations to mitigate deforestation.

18. Parties commit to enable the accelerated large-scale development, transfer and deployment of environmentally sound and climate friendly technologies across all stages of the technology cycle, respecting IPR regimes including protecting the legitimate interests of public and private innovators. Developed country parties commit to work towards doubling aggregate public investments in climate related research, development and demonstration by 2015 from current levels and quadrupling the efforts by 2020.

Commit to spending 2x - 4x on climate field related R & D.

20. The Parties share the view that the strengthened financial architecture should be able to handle gradually scaled up international public support.

International public finance support to developing countries [should/shall] reach the order of [X] billion USD in 2020 on the basis of appropriate increases in mitigation and adaptation efforts by developing countries.

Would you believe that the longest section of the draft is titled "Financial resources and investments to support actions on mitigation, adaptation, capacity-building and technology cooperation"? In any case, it seems that the amount (already spelled out in the billions) developed countries will pay out has not yet been decided.

21. The Parties confirm climate financing committed under this agreement as new and additional resources that supplement existing international public financial flows otherwise available for developing countries in support of poverty alleviation and the continued progress towards the Millennium Development Goals.

In this regard:

- Developed country parties commit to deliver upfront public financing for 2010-201[2] corresponding on average to [10] billion USD annually for early action, capacity building, technology and strengthening adaptation and mitigation readiness in developing countries as set forth in Attachment C;

- From [2013] The Parties commit to regularly review appropriateness of contributions and the circle of contributors against indicators of fairness based on GDP and emissions levels and taking into account the level of development as set forth in Attachment C.

Each developed country that signs up will finance the developing world with $10 billion/year to start, and scale up from there (as emissions will certainly not be going down in the short term).

Again, there are 32 points in this draft and I've touched on perhaps 5. I am not seeing the how/why the developing world is going to be compelled to reduce emissions using the cash doled out by the first world. I believe we have reason to be skeptical about the aims of this proposed treaty.
 
Last edited:
Dec 30, 2004
12,553
2
76
Yeah it's becoming clear this is little but an attack on capitalism, and Barrack wants to sign it to make things "fair" (note not "best for country" but "fair).
 
Dec 30, 2004
12,553
2
76
The CONCEPT is not bad. The rest of it is Garbage.

Taxing successful nations to pay for corrupt nations' antics and wars and inefficiencies, all based on a proven false pretense (Anthropogenic Global Warming)?
TERRIBLE concept. Duh.
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
Taxing successful nations to pay for corrupt nations' antics and wars and inefficiencies, all based on a proven false pretense (Anthropogenic Global Warming)?
TERRIBLE concept. Duh.

The concept of preventing the type of pollution mess we created when we were developing is sound.

Look up EPA superfund sites, and put a $ figure on waht we have spent, and need to spend to finish cleaning up at home.

We need to be responsible for what we consume.
 

Sacrilege

Senior member
Sep 6, 2007
647
0
0
Maybe the rich, successful nations should re-colonize the 3rd World and implement renewable energy/sustainable practices by edict. It would probably be quicker, cheaper, more efficient, and less costly in lives in the long run.
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
Maybe the rich, successful nations should re-colonize the 3rd World and implement renewable energy/sustainable practices by edict. It would probably be quicker, cheaper, more efficient, and less costly in lives in the long run.

What? and cut out the middleman? (Copenhagen Treaty supporters)
 
Dec 30, 2004
12,553
2
76
The concept of preventing the type of pollution mess we created when we were developing is sound.

Look up EPA superfund sites, and put a $ figure on waht we have spent, and need to spend to finish cleaning up at home.

We need to be responsible for what we consume.

The only countries who will produce a sizable amount of pollution anyways are China and India, and they don't care in the first place.
This bill is just going to pave the way to China's rise as the new world power.
 

RyanPaulShaffer

Diamond Member
Jul 13, 2005
3,434
1
0
So, we have to borrow more money we don't have from the Chinese in order to pay countries that hate us so they can continue to pollute like crazy while we cripple our economy in the hallowed name of AGW?

Anybody who thinks Copenhagen is about anything more than global redistribution of wealth is either incredibly naive or willfully ignorant.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
So, we have to borrow more money we don't have from the Chinese in order to pay countries that hate us so they can continue to pollute like crazy while we cripple our economy in the hallowed name of AGW?

Anybody who thinks Copenhagen is about anything more than global redistribution of wealth is either incredibly naive or willfully ignorant.
There was an earlier proposal for the USA to spend $350 million on helping poor nations (Third World and New World alike) to develop and implement clean, efficient energy to improve living standards. I was kinda okay with that, but now Hillary Clinton is saying $100 billion. It's insane that we would borrow $100 billion from China to help poor nations buy Chinese-made goods. (Not a lot of American-made LED solar lanterns or solar cookers out there.)

EDIT: Just looked at Clinton's statement and there's good and bad. Good, it's a $100 billion fund total, so the USA would probably be paying only a third to a half of it. Bad, it's not to support developing cleaner energy for poor countries, it's to "help them deal with climate change." In other words, just another plan to move wealth from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries.
 
Last edited:

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
I had somebody in offtopic laughing at me because I suggested the envrionmental movement at this level has been taken over by the old gaurd socialists. They dont care about the envrionmental. They see it as a tool to collect power and redistribute wealth. This conference is proving that more and more by the day. From this information, to a leader of the G76(?) complaining the initial money transfer of 10 billion was not big enough and a figure closer to 1 trillion was needed. To them applauding Chavez as he railed on Capitalism.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
I had somebody in offtopic laughing at me because I suggested the envrionmental movement at this level has been taken over by the old gaurd socialists. They dont care about the envrionmental. They see it as a tool to collect power and redistribute wealth. This conference is proving that more and more by the day. From this information, to a leader of the G76(?) complaining the initial money transfer of 10 billion was not big enough and a figure closer to 1 trillion was needed. To them applauding Chavez as he railed on Capitalism.
The new Green is the old Red.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,883
641
126
So, we have to borrow more money we don't have from the Chinese in order to pay countries that hate us so they can continue to pollute like crazy while we cripple our economy in the hallowed name of AGW?

Anybody who thinks Copenhagen is about anything more than global redistribution of wealth is either incredibly naive or willfully ignorant.
Here's another take on it. Nations that hate our capitalist lifestyle, that are not willing to embrace that lifestyle themselves, would like capitalist nations to share their wealth.

Pretty mind blowing when you think about the inherent implications.

This won't stop our Chairman from committing funds to this farce. We'd better hope to high heaven the Senate does not embrace this. Actually, I'm sure they want to. They're not listening to the people right now, so this may become a reality.

Edit: This would not be a one time payment. This is yearly.
 

RyanPaulShaffer

Diamond Member
Jul 13, 2005
3,434
1
0
This won't stop our Chairman from committing funds to this farce. We'd better hope to high heaven the Senate does not embrace this. Actually, I'm sure they want to. They're not listening to the people right now, so this may become a reality.

Maybe or maybe not. Cap and Tax has been languishing for months now, and it only passed by a slim margin in the radical liberal House. Many Midwest Democrat Senators realize that cap and tax would absolutely destroy the economy in their regions, and they can't hide as an anonymous face in a sea of 400+ representatives, so I think it's pretty unlikely that cap and tax has the same support in the Senate. The Senate, due to there only being two senators per state, tends to be much less radical than the more anonymous House.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,883
641
126
Maybe or maybe not. Cap and Tax has been languishing for months now, and it only passed by a slim margin in the radical liberal House. Many Midwest Democrat Senators realize that cap and tax would absolutely destroy the economy in their regions, and they can't hide as an anonymous face in a sea of 400+ representatives, so I think it's pretty unlikely that cap and tax has the same support in the Senate. The Senate, due to there only being two senators per state, tends to be much less radical than the more anonymous House.
Not arguing, but Cap and Tax is a means for redistribution of wealth here in the U.S. Whatever our Chairman commits to in Copenhagen, that would subsequently be approved by the Senate, is a separate entity unto itself.

Copenhagen is about global redistribution of wealth, Cap and Tax is about national redistribution.

Remember this? Fundamentally Transforming the United States of America

It's happening at a dizzying pace.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,665
440
126
Hrmm.... living for others and paying for their life style is not only socialist but akin to slavery.

Great, put me and other other American further into debt so "help" other countries.

Sorry I don't buy it.

I have no problem with cleaning up America and trying to get other countries like China and India to clean up their Acts as well. Pollution is running rampant in those countries and ours as well. It needs to stop. But redistribution or wealth, is a big no no in my book.
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
The CONCEPT is not bad. The rest of it is Garbage.

That's it in a nutshell.

I have zero problems with all of us committing to hard targets to mitigate the effects of pollution (which go far beyond the fantastical 2012-esque tidal waves destroying NYC and affect our daily health). That much of the treaty - and there is language in there to that effect - is fine by me.

I don't have a problem with the first world contributing to poorer nations in order to help them build cleaner instead of on the cheap. It is logical that rich nations will be able to better handle the economic effects of this treaty. What I do have a problem with is the fact that there seems to be no binding language here that will require the funds we dole out under this agreement to be used for the intended cause. Not that it matters - there are no goals defined for the 3rd world anyways.

I had somebody in off topic laughing at me because I suggested the environmental movement at this level has been taken over by the old guard socialists. They don't care about the environmental. They see it as a tool to collect power and redistribute wealth. This conference is proving that more and more by the day. From this information, to a leader of the G76(?) complaining the initial money transfer of 10 billion was not big enough and a figure closer to 1 trillion was needed. To them applauding Chavez as he railed on Capitalism.

I don't think the aim is socialism itself, but to make unrestrained pollution and industrial growth "hurt" enough to change our minds on how to go about our lives:

Climate 'debt' comes due

This may be what Yvo De Boer, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, alluded to last month when he doused expectations that Copenhagen would produce a "comprehensive" international climate treaty.

It would be "impossible to craft and draft" a detailed plan to effectively combat climate change in time for December. "That is not possible. But it is also not necessary," Mr. De Boer said. "I think what Copenhagen has to achieve is a basic political understanding."
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
The only countries who will produce a sizable amount of pollution anyways are China and India, and they don't care in the first place.
This bill is just going to pave the way to China's rise as the new world power.

Well, there isn't a bill, so we don't have to worry about that, but if WE had a bill in front of OUR congress that required China to clean up there act to have access to our markets, they would care.
 

MotF Bane

No Lifer
Dec 22, 2006
60,801
10
0
Well, there isn't a bill, so we don't have to worry about that, but if WE had a bill in front of OUR congress that required China to clean up there act to have access to our markets, they would care.

Such a bill would be decried as racist and xenophobic, and shot down immediately.
 

drebo

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,034
1
81
Constitutionally, the President does not have the authority to bind our domestic policy to an extra-national organization or treaty, which is what this is.

My hope is that enough of the elected officials who are tasked with upholding the Constitution have the balls to stand up to this farce.

This country's lack of ability to learn from past experiences is astounding. How much of the money we give to Israel and other African countries actually goes toward increasing the quality of life for the "poor inhabitants"? None of it. Why would we expect this to be any different?

You cannot force industrialization on countries. They have to come upon it on their own and in their own time. Capitalism will lead them there through striving for better efficiency. Coal will fall to nuclear, not because it's cleaner and better for the environment, but because it's more efficient. Unless, of course, the government gets involved. Giving money to them now will simply subsidize less efficient processes.

BTW, this "treaty" is worse than Kyoto. Anyone who opposed that should oppose this...most, however, will not because this is supported by their messiah.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
Constitutionally, the President does not have the authority to bind our domestic policy to an extra-national organization or treaty, which is what this is.

My hope is that enough of the elected officials who are tasked with upholding the Constitution have the balls to stand up to this farce.

This country's lack of ability to learn from past experiences is astounding. How much of the money we give to Israel and other African countries actually goes toward increasing the quality of life for the "poor inhabitants"? None of it. Why would we expect this to be any different?

You cannot force industrialization on countries. They have to come upon it on their own and in their own time. Capitalism will lead them there through striving for better efficiency. Coal will fall to nuclear, not because it's cleaner and better for the environment, but because it's more efficient. Unless, of course, the government gets involved. Giving money to them now will simply subsidize less efficient processes.

BTW, this "treaty" is worse than Kyoto. Anyone who opposed that should oppose this...most, however, will not because this is supported by their messiah.

the President also did not have the power to take over private business and fire the CEO. but guess what? it happened.

this is something t hat should not be passed. weird that i haven't heard about it on the news (then again i been playing Dragon age and not watching TV)
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
Just a little update and link if anyone cares to look it over - The Montreal Gazette has a link to the latest "Copenhagen Accord" as a PDF.

The language has been changed, but all of the points I mentioned initially are still there.